Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I once again rise on a point of order under 23(k) and (l).
Mr. Speaker, yesterday in this House you ruled on a point of order that I raised in this House last week, in which you found that I did have a point of order and Mr. Hawkins was asked to withdraw his comments.
It has come to my attention and I am rising on the first available opportunity and I will table this document at the appropriate time today. It has come to my attention that a Facebook electronic missive was sent out of this House literally minutes after your ruling, that says, “Well, the NWT Speaker ruled against me and he felt my words were too harsh for the Minister of Health.
“First off, I am happy to withdraw them fully. But it should be said it is difficult, if not enormously challenging not to be passionate about the job we are doing here. And when the Minister cannot do his job, I question why they are left there at the cost of all Northerners.
“One serious challenge for me is, should it not be my job to call the Minister out when he won’t or cannot do his job.”
Those are direct references, once again, that you ruled and required a withdrawal. He closes by saying, “And at the same time, isn’t it in many ways the greater crime to ignore that fact.” which I would only take as a reference to the ruling.
Mr. Speaker, the point of order is I see this missive as no different than a note, where in the past notes have been written in the House and it becomes public and gets tabled. This one, we have on one hand Mr. Hawkins speaking in this House saying he withdraws his comments and apologizes, and then in this House he sends out a Facebook that
basically repudiates that and, in fact, challenges the findings of the ruling.
I believe the point of order is still relevant because when you look at these two contradictory messages in the same period of time in this House, one of them is accurate and one of them is not. I think this type of technology, this type of communication now is going to be a challenge for us. In this case, I believe Mr. Hawkins still has to clarify whether, in fact, he does withdraw his comments, given his mixed messages here that he’s sending, one saying yes, one saying no and, not only that, but challenging the ruling of the Chair. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. I will allow Mr. Hawkins to reply to Mr. Miltenberger’s point of order. Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the job that the House Leader has to do and I say that with great respect. He’s doing his job. As far as his challenge under 23(k) and (l), I think he’s in error and I’ll say why.
In the House yesterday, I will quote from unedited Hansard, “That was my intent when I said I apologize to this House sincerely and fully, and with that, I withdraw my remarks. My apologies for missing that last piece.” Of course, it also goes on, “It was not intended in any other manner.”
Yesterday I pointed out to the public who’s following this particular issue, yes, I did post on Facebook, so I will take ownership of that. That’s the only way to do this. One must be accountable. Mr. Speaker, I pointed out, following one of the posts by our NWT politics sites, which I attached there, to help explain it further, appreciate or understand my perspective. So, Mr. Speaker, I, first off, am happy to withdraw them fully and that’s where I explained the remarks. What I do now is further elaborate to explain to people the enormous challenges about being passionate in this job. Of course, I explain the serious challenge before this particular thing which has led us to these problems.
In this Chamber, I fully respect this ruling, I did so and will continue to do so. In this House you will continue to hear that in the context of how I phrase my words, my statements and my questions. I believe it’s an illusion to say I am attempting to challenge the Speaker’s ruling. I once again say I am respecting your ruling.
I feel that my job is to get out there and communicate why and what has led us to this ruling issued by you, and again, I respect it. The public has a right to know and they are concerned and they are contacting me and they demand that I continue accountability with this government well within the rules and your oversight.
If I do not do my job, which is demand accountability by people, it makes it very challenging for why they sent me and many other of my colleagues here. Expressing my opinion outside the venue of this House does not contradict your point of view, it further explains what has led me to why I took the statements I made last a week and I continue to accept your ruling and decision of them. It doesn’t change my internal passion for the job and, yes, it is challenging to do this job. Sometimes you get heated under the collar, but nothing has changed since yesterday, which is I fully accept your opinion and your direction to this House and your ruling. That said, I was trying to help people understand what passion and energy had led me to where I was.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. I am not going to allow debate on this issue. I’m going to take it under advisement and I will bring it forward to the House more than likely tomorrow or the next day. Thank you, colleagues.
